- From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:26:04 +0200
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
* Dan Brickley | | Not such a bad idea. Except I'm not sure "really being a unary | association" is easy to define. Yes and no. I think in RDF it can be very fuzzy whether or not something inherently is a unary association. In fact, I would go further and say that probably the reason it is difficult to define is that there is no such thing in the real world, ie: the distinction is artificial. In topic maps, however, there's a razor-sharp line, since it's a question of abstract syntax. Either it was a unary association, or it was not, and there's no ambiguity whatsoever. In this particular case we start from topic maps, so that is not a difficulty. | In prolog, one might write "person(dan)" while in RDF I'd use the | class foaf:Person. How can we judge whether the class is an | artificial one or not? In this case I'm not sure it's possible. -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 15:26:19 UTC